Truth or Fiction in Historical Dress

Truth or Fiction

in Historical Dress

Victorian women had 16 inch waistlines.

FALSE.

Tiny waistlines are mentioned in the classic film Gone with the Wind, but while the movie helped make the myth more popular, it didn't begin the rumor. Nonetheless, there's little in the way of proof that grown women had waists so tiny. In fact, a close examination of existing period garments tells us that a waist less than 20 inches was extremely rare.

It is true that some Victorian writers claimed to own (or have seen) tiny waistlines, but it's clear they were either exaggerating, were interested in extreme fetishism, or were referring to corset size, not waist size. (When a corset is worn correctly, the back edges do not meet, leaving a gap of about 2 inches, and sometimes as much as five inches. Therefore, a woman who wore a corset with a 18 inch waistline actually had a corseted waist of about 20 to 25 inches round.)

In addition, while some waistlines may appear very small to the naked eye, when measured, they are within normal ranges. For example, modern folks might see a corset in a museum that makes them want to faint, the waistline appears so tiny. But if the curator gets out a measuring tape, they will find the waist isn't under 20 inches. Remember, too, that women had a tendency to be smaller in the past, and that Victorian garments were designed to make the upper and lower halves of the body look larger in comparison to the waistline.

Women had ribs removed in order to obtain a smaller waistline.

FALSE.

Though it might be true that one or two wealthy women went through surgery to have ribs removed, it's highly unlikely, and the practice was far from being widespread. Think about the medical knowledge of the time period; surgery brought extreme dangers. Doctors were largely unaware of germs and surgical hygiene, and only had the crudest methods of sedating patients. Survival rates for surgery tended to be low. Surgery was something that was only done in important medical situations. Cosmetic surgery was unknown.

Many Victorian doctors believed women breathed differently from men.

TRUE.

Because women had been wearing corsets for so long, it is true that 19th century doctors believed they breathed entirely different than men. Men, they said, breathed from the diaphragm, but women breathed from their upper chest. The fact was, however, that women couldn't breathe from the diaphragm when they were wearing snug corsets.

Corsets were abolished from fashion in the 1910s.

FALSE.

Although some designers of the period claimed this was true, women went on wearing corsets long after the 1910s.

It's true that corsets dramatically changed in the 1910s; the emphasis was much less on creating a small waistline, and much more on elongating and slimming the entire figure. Were the new corsets more comfortable? Not really. Now they were some of the longest worn in history, and were still well boned.
As the 1920s began, women did start wearing un-boned (or barely boned) corsets, now most often called "girdles." But the purpose of the garment remained the same as it had for centuries: to reshape women's figures. There was a revival of corsets in the late 1940s and 50s, and a large number of women continued to wear girdles well into the 1960s and 70s.

Women never wore pants until the 1920s.

FALSE.

In the Western world, it's true that pants did not become widely acceptable on women until the 1920s-and then, only in casual situations. However, quite a number of women wore bicycling and horseback riding pants in the late 19th century. Many Victorian women's bathing suits included trousers or bloomers. In addition, feminists wore Turkish trousers in the mid 19th century. Also, at that time, women wore drawers as part of their underwear, which so resembled pants, they were originally called "trousers." In addition, women often dressed in trousers at costume balls in the 18th and 19th century.

Women began wearing pants so they wouldn't expose themselves accidentally while wearing hoops.

TRUE.

In the 1850s, when hoops once again came into vogue, they were lighter in weight than previous incarnations. They were also worn with slightly shorter skirts. Since women rarely wore any sort of underwear below the waist, other than petticoats, it's easy to see how a strong wind, or a clumsy trip, could result in embarrassment. Women did begin wearing drawers or trousers under their petticoats during this time period, and a number of period accounts indicate that when accidents came, they were thankful for it.

Many women caught on fire because of hoops.

TRUE.

There are many period accounts of women catching fire while wearing hoops. Fire was still the primary source of heat and light, and wide, sweeping skirts could be a hazard. Flame retardant fabrics were discussed (and used) more widely when 19th century hoops were worn, and newspaper accounts detail deaths of thousands of women whose hoops caught fire.

V-ed necklines didn't appear until the 20th century, when they shocked many people.

FALSE.

A quick review of either existing historical fashions or historic fashion plates quickly reveals this to be a myth. V-ed necklines have been around for centuries, and were even worn in the more prudish Victorian era.

Black clothes were only worn for mourning.

FALSE.

Black clothes were extremely practical in a day when hand washing was an extreme sport and dry cleaning as we know was unheard of. Black clothing hid dirt and grime more readily than most colors.

In addition, wardrobes were generally much smaller in the past than they are today (although, certainly the wealthy had more than enough clothing), so black was practical for other reasons, too. It went with everything, and could be dressed up for a ball, dressed down a touch for church, and be worn unadorned for shopping.

It is true that many people also wore black for mourning, but the vast majority of black historic clothing seen today was not worn for mourning.

Most women of the past sewed their own clothing.

FALSE.

Imagine the poor woman of history, sewing not only her undergarments and outerclothes, all by hand, but sewing all her husband's and children's clothes, too. The idea is really quite absurd, especially when you stop to consider how much time and effort it took to run a household before the invention of modern appliances. Even a woman who owned a sewing machine would have been hard pressed to sew all of her own clothing.

In reality, the wealthy had their clothing made by dressmakers and tailors. The middle class did the same, but might supplement their wardrobe by sewing small articles for themselves and their families, or (by the mid 19th century) buying some items ready-made. The poor typically wore cast-offs and clothes donated to charity; there was little time for sewing, unless it was to remake or mend an old garment.

The many pattern catalogs of the late Victorian era were used by some women to sew their own clothing, but many women also took such patterns to their local dressmaker.

Historic white dresses are all bridal gowns.

FALSE.

White dresses were commonly worn for all sorts of reasons. They were widely popular for baptisms, first communions, graduations, and bridesmaids dresses--not to mention balls, dinner parties, and "every day" wear. On the other hand, the white bridal gown didn't become widely desirable until Queen Victoria was wed in a white dress in the 1840s. Even so, most women were not wed in white until the early 20th century. Most historic brides wore their "best dress," which was often brown, navy, or tan. There are even documented red bridal gowns.

Women dress to please or attract men.

FALSE (I think)

This theory sounds good, but doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In nearly every era, when women's fashions have changed dramatically, men have protested that they hate the change. For example, when hoopskirts came into vogue in the mid-19th century, many men called the fashion absurd and ugly. It meant a great deal of trouble for men, as hoops crowded them out of carriages and rooms and couches, but after some time passed, men as a whole gradually became accustomed to the fashion, and began calling it attractive. No sooner did this happen, then women altered their clothes once again, ditching the hoop and gravitating toward bustles. Once again, men complained-but after a while, they began to like it...and once again, women completely altered their fashions. If women dressed to attract men, why would they constantly change their clothes, to the protest of most men?

HOME

04/22/2006